The argument that aims to explain the reasons for the extinction of the blompus, as either due to climate change that destroyed the food chain or the arrival of humans that enhanced predation of the large carnivorous species is not entirely logical sinice it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
Firstly Some scholars theorize that the climate change so altered the distribution of plants and animals in the environment that the food chain upon which the blompus depended was irretrievably disrupted. This evidence does not provide us with the food that the blompus relied on and how the change in weather affected it, either due to increased rainfall, drought etc and also since the blompus is carnivorous, and it relies on animals for food, then it would have just changed location to hunt for other animals seeing that animals exist till this day, and since the arguent did not give a reason for its restriction on location hence it is not a concrete reason why the species went extinct.
The school of thought that opines that the predation was due to the hunting activities of humans does not give us reasons to back up their claim, firstly, there’s no evidence that humans and blompus were in the same habitat, or evidence of hunting by humans in terms of fossil of blompus seen in human caves. Hence since theres no evidence of humans and blompus in the same habitat, the argument is flawed.
It is noteworthy that humans are omnivorous and the argument shows little evidence that human activity for food will likely make a species go extinct as other animals humans have been relying on for food are still in existence. Or were they hunted down as a threat? The argument does not provide evidence of a widespread blompus genocide.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed since it ignores crucial assumptions, it doesn’t answer if humans and blompus shared the same habitats, neither does it give reasons why climate change will affect the food chain of a carnivore, when it can actually change location and hunt other animals, The argument would have been strengthened if it had given reasons why the blompus couldn’t change location during the climate change and hunt other animals for food, perhaps if it has only existed in an island, or if it provided evidences that the humans delibrately sought out the blompus for food or other reasons. It is worthy to note that the argument will need more evidence to delineate the extinction of the blompus.